Bullshit. A reasonable level of taxation to fulfill the obligations of government is understandable, an unreasonable level of taxation to expand the role of government far, far, far, far beyond it's purpose is NOT understandable, particularly in a nation which expounds freedom as a way of life. How is it "patriotic" to starve our businesses of competitiveness and growth?

Private property IS one of those freedoms we enjoy, and the fruits of our labors ARE our private property.

For a crowd that is so pro-privacy and civil liberties I do not understand why the slashdot readers are so ready to accept a government which continues to expand faster than population growth + inflation. Private property IS a civil liberty and it IS patriotic to protect it.

I would die for this country, but I will be damned if I support the ever-growing gov't dependent class which continually sets the standard of freedom lower.

There should be zero corporate taxes. I would much rather see corporations retain/hire employees than pay the federal government protection money - let the people do that.

If you think manufacturing will ever move back to CA, you don't live in CA. China, India, South America, Russia, Africa, and Eastern Europe are all far cheaper than anti-business CA. There's a reason Apple manufacturers all those ipods in China, and it's not because CA is a wonderful state to live in with a worker OR corporate friendly tax code.

What kind of backwards fucking world do we live in that thinks a bigger government is the solution to all our problems? Did you people read 1984? Animal Farm? The Constitution of the USA? Any history between 1700-1900? The Federalist Papers?

Have you ever heard the phrase "Good enough for government work?" Is that the attitude you people want from the people managing the healthcare of you and your family? Do you really not see that government-controlled anything is the ULTIMATE MONOPOLY, because there is NO competition, NO desire for efficiency (it will cost jobs, waaaah), because there will be far too low qualifications for workers?

Christ, it's like asking everything in userland to run in ring 0 instead.

1. If it saves money why does it cost more and necessitate raising taxes?

2. If you want to save money simply deny people access to medical care if they aren't willing to sign a financial liability waiver (this would be signed by your legal guardian at first and then yourself upon emancipation). This would essentially be a contract saying you're required to meet your financial obligations after receiving care, be it through your health insurance, in cash, a loan repayment, or wage garnishment.

3. If you must have socialized health care, deny health care to felons (until their probation is complete) and illegal immigrants. You shouldn't get a free ride courtesy of the tax payer if you can't be bothered to obey the law or aren't a citizen. (Don't like it? Leave the fucking country.)


Frankly, society (I mean tax payers) do not "owe" you free medical care and the medical industry isn't some kind of subservient slave class. It's as stupid as the UN's "right to housing" - who builds your houses? where is your house? how big is your house? who decides who gets the nicest house and where? If we're going to slide into communism, let's do it quick so that the rest of us who actually appreciate individual freedom, responsibility, and a powerful but limited in breadth federal government can get to work restoring the Constitution instead of these shenanigans where we are so willing to sacrifice liberty for tyranny, be it to Capital Hill or to The People.

...No, in Communism, there is no private property and all property is publicly owned, and everyone is paid according to their need and not necessarily their ability. I'd say that's a bit more than just a political structure.

Socialism is a stepping stone towards Communism.

See there's your problem, if O'Brien hits ^C before transfer is done you're toast! You need to:

cat me | ssh remote 'cat > me' && rm -f me

Gotta use -f to stop those pesky clones.

Because then you get labeled as a "right-wing fringe" Libertarian and no one will take you seriously, regardless of any rationality and logic in your arguments. They're the unfairly labeled internet trolls of the political world.

Personally, I find Libertarians to be a perfect blend of fiscal responsibility, personal liberty, and laissez-faire social values. Much less emphasis on the Federal government's one-size fits all approach to problems also appeals to me. After all, I like my Federal Gov't like I like my kernels: small, fast, and unnoticeable, none of which describes the Fed. under R&D's.

More socially open minded than Republicans, but less socialist than Democrats, and with a greater emphasis on personal liberty and fiscal responsibility than either, Libertarians are the silently ignored third option.

The AC was a douchebag, but I have to call shenanigans as well...maybe you meant "circa-2001"? You did NOT have a laptop that did 1400x1050 in 1991. The first Mac PowerBooks's came out in '91, and they had tiny monochrome screens, while the IBM thinkpads had some of the early 10" TFT LCDs. Most computers still used VGA, and were doing what...320x240 or 640x480 at the time?

2000 called, they want their troll back.

Hell, I'd like to know how 1.6 million processors can fit in just 96 racks. That's more than 16 thousand processors per rack. Either these aren't standard microprocessors or someone got their numbers a couple of orders of magnitude off.

Even if you could get 16000 modern server processors into a rack, the power density alone would probably cause it to burst into flames (>1.6 MW)!

I'm sure I'll just get marked as troll/flamebait/whatever for this, but I have the karma to burn.

Why was it OK for Obama to sidestep the real, legal, and very Constitutional issue of his place of birth? All he had to do to quell the dissenters was release a single piece of paper and yet he provided what is unarguably a falsified document. Is this not a lie worthy of our attention? Shouldn't we require our government officials to be transparent in this regard, especially someone who's going to be the "Leader of the Free World"? The charges aren't anywhere near as far fetched or nutty as the truthers or the NASA-haters, but the sheer popularity of the man demands they be dismissed. Instead, people dismiss it out of hand not because Obama is beyond reproach, but because people permit him to be.

The fact of the matter is, we live in a place and time in the world where society picks and chooses which laws our leaders can and can't be held accountable for. Very few people care about the "rule of law" in any absolute terms and both political parties actively revoke and limit our Constitutional rights, disturbingly often with the support of private citizens. We gleefully revoke rights of our neighbors in the name of safety and security. This generation of Americans is a spiteful, self-loathing, hateful group, asking not what can they do for their country but demanding what their country can do for them.

The letter g might be confused with the letter g? Say it aint so!